Oroville – Residents showed lingering distrust Wednesday night as they voiced concern about loss of access to recreation and questions about hairline cracks in the reconstructed spillway.
Related Articles

Oroville Dam: Spillway failure report delayed; coming soon

Oroville Dam: Phase two of spillway construction may be more challenging

Exclusive video: How they’re fixing the Oroville Dam

Oroville Dam: State official says new spillway already has cracks

Oroville Dam: Coalition, politicians say D.C. lobbying trip a success

Joel Ledesma, State Water Project deputy director, addressed the cracks early in his presentation, reiterating that the department and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, determined it was a normal part of the curing process and the integrity of the structure should not be threatened. He also said there was a study of sediment in the Feather River underway, anticipating two big talking points for residents throughout the evening.
A few local politicians also shared some words at the start. Sen. Jim Nielsen, R-Red Bluff, brought up his proposed legislation with Assemblymember James Gallagher, R-Yuba City, for a comprehensive safety review as well as a way to better engage the community with the department. He thanked the department for being “steadfast” in holding community meetings.
“We’re in it all for the long haul,” Nielsen said. “We are mindful of what this is going to mean to our children and our grandchildren.”
Bill Connelly, chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors, urged the community members present to ask tough questions of department officials. Self-described as “not a fan” of DWR for the last 50 years, Connelly has long said the community was short-changed by the department, in terms of recreation and economic benefit that was originally promised.
One of the things he suggested was having a forensic report conducted for all other dam infrastructure constructed at the same time as the original spillway.
“It’s all relevant,” he said. “I think you should ask those questions and get them answered. I appreciate they’re trying to be more open. I think that’s a first step.”
Gallagher said some of his biggest concerns were a change in culture within the department and a higher standard in the way the dam is maintained and operated. He also said sediment buildup in the river and the impacts on recreation needed to be addressed.
“We don’t want to just repair,” he said. “That’s important … but there are a whole lot of other things that need to get done.”
Department officials reviewed the operations plan for the year and gave an update on phase two of construction, which includes completely repairing the upper portion of the main spillway and building a concrete splash pad and cutoff wall for the emergency spillway. The cutoff wall should be complete in January.
Erin Mellon, DWR assistant director of public affairs, said the department was working on a comprehensive needs assessment which should be complete at the end of 2019. In that study, other possible contingencies such as fully lining the emergency spillway and adding an entirely new spillway would be looked at, Mellon said.
After presentations by department officials, residents had three minutes for their comments or questions. One question that came up again and again was would the community regain access over the dam? Prior word from DWR was that it could not be guaranteed, as there may be a security concern.

var _informq = _informq || []; _informq.push(["embed"]);
Eric See, a DWR biologist, said the answer was yes, the plan was to reopen it. Department officials said they could not give a time estimate for when that would be, although the contractor’s agreement ends in January 2019.
“We’d very much like to provide that,” See said. “We are anticipating doing that when construction is over and it’s safe for the public to be up there.”
Resident Jack Kieley said community members could leave with “a little more peace of mind” if they could get a commitment it would reopen. In response, Ledesma said the community needs assessment would determine whether the road across the dam would be reopened to the public again.
Mellon added that after consulting the Sheriff’s Office, it was determined Oroville Dam Boulevard East leading to the dam would need to remain closed during construction for public safety.
Don Blake said there seemed to be a discrepancy between what DWR officials were saying and what the FERC letter said about the hairline cracks, going as far as to say that someone should be going to jail.
In response, Mellon said experts found that every spillway had some cracks and that if DWR had changed the mix further, it would have reduced the strength of the concrete slabs.
Others pointed out that the department had missed warning signs of cracks before — they were part of what led to the crisis in February, according to the Board of Consultants’ assessment. Why should they trust the department now?
Some asked that the technical memorandum explaining how DWR determined the cracks did not need repairing be made public. Mellon said she was working to get it online.
Oroville resident Celia Hirschman said she had attended every community meeting hosted by the department and expected a “much higher A game.” She asked how the department could know how much pressure there was within the dam with most of the piezometers out of commission.
“My recommendation is that you take us seriously,” Hirshman said.
Mellon said that would be looked at as part of the community needs assessment. Jeanne Kuttel, the department’s chief of engineering, added that there was another way to measure seepage, which was addressed in the department’s August report on the vegetation area or the “green spot” on the face of the dam.
There will be another community meeting Thursday in Yuba City at the fairgrounds beginning at 6 p.m.
Contact reporter Risa Johnson at 896-7763.